Loading…
AG-2026.06-2110·astro-ph.CO
Authors
Abstract
Measurements of the weak lensing of galaxies and of the cosmic microwave background (CMB) provide direct probes of the cosmic matter density field, but the two observables are sensitive to different spatial scales, redshift ranges, and survey systematics. Their cross-correlation thus enables consistency checks of the theoretical model and of potential systematics in either dataset. We present measurements of the cross-correlation between CMB lensing and cosmic shear over $\sim$1,300 deg$^2$ of the sky using the SPT-3G D1 CMB lensing maps and the Dark Energy Survey Year 3 (DES Y3) shear catalogs. For the first time, we measure this cross-correlation at high significance ($\sim 14σ$) when using a polarization-only CMB lensing reconstruction that is expected to be robust against biases induced by extragalactic foregrounds. We test a variety of other CMB lensing estimators that include temperature information and exhibit different tradeoffs between foreground biases and noise, as well as a shear sample that consists of blue, star-forming galaxies and has been shown to be less impacted by galaxy intrinsic alignments. Assuming $Λ$CDM and marginalizing over uncertainties in intrinsic alignments, baryonic feedback, and various nuisance parameters, we obtain a constraint on the amplitude of matter clustering $S_8 \equiv σ_8 \sqrt{Ω_m / 0.3} = 0.833^{+0.047}_{-0.061}$, consistent with both the primary CMB results from Planck and shear-only results from DES Y3. By combining our measurement with Planck, we find mild constraints on the astrophysical processes that impact the cross-correlation. We obtain a constraint on the intrinsic alignment amplitude of the DES sample that is competitive with that from shear-only analyses, and we find a lower limit on the strength of baryonic feedback.
Submitted
24 June 20265 days ago
Version
v1
License
CC-BY-4.0
DOI
10.48550/arXiv.2606.26223
Chat with this PDF
Ask questions, probe assumptions, request a plain-English summary. Answers cite sections from the preprint itself.
Community
Questions and answers about this paper from other readers. No formal peer review — just a place to think out loud.